JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Trump’s Violent Tongue
Brief #100 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Abigail Hunt
Like the plot point in the hellscape of a dystopian novel, Trump’s Truth Social network provides users a soapbox for vitriol and calls for violence.
Violence Against Women
Brief #149 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by Abigail Hunt
It should cause us all consternation when society rewards men for spouting dangerous rhetoric, while it chastises and punishes women for expressing the same sentiments.
Examining Competitive US House Races in the Northeast
Brief #99 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Ian Milden
Republicans shocked many pundits by only winning a four-seat majority in the House of Representatives during the midterm elections.
China’s Geopolitical Influence Around the World: Should We Be Worried?
Brief #92 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Inijah Quadri
China’s mammoth economic initiatives, such as the BRI, are seen as double-edged swords. On one hand, they promise to…
The United Auto Workers (UAW): Who Are They? Why Are They On Strike? Why Does It Matter?
Policy Brief #55 – Economic
by Arvind Salem
This is an incredibly calculated decision, which allows the UAW to inflict the most harm by having the workers of the most profitable plants go on strike, while everyone else works… A strike of this magnitude has multiple downstream effects on the economy…
Congress to Blame for the Child Poverty Rate
Policy Brief #165 – Health and Gender
by Geoffrey Small
With Republicans maintaining a House majority, there was no hope for a vote in favor of continuing the increased tax credit.
Online Dating Evolution: Technology’s Influence on Modern Relationships
Brief #148 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by Inijah Quadri
As dating transitions further into the digital sphere, the question of how technology influences autonomy, consent, and equity in romantic relationships has risen to the fore.
The Civilian Climate Corps Unveiled to Combat Climate Change
Brief #161 – Environmental Policy Brief
by Carlos Avalos
The aim of the Civilian Climate Corps, as stated in the Executive Order, is to… maximize the creation of accessible training opportunities and good jobs.
Leds May Signal Brighter Times Ahead
Brief #160 – Environmental Policy Brief
by Todd J. Broadman
The average annual operating cost of a 60-watt incandescent bulb is $8.74, the operating cost of an equivalent 13-watt CFL is $1.89.
Were Asian Americans Manipulated and Used As Pawns To Overturn Affirmative Action?
Were Asian Americans Manipulated and Used As Pawns To Overturn Affirmative Action?
Civil Rights Policy Brief #209 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | July 20, 2023
Background photo taken from: prospect.org
__________________________________
On June 29, 2023 the United States Supreme Court decided the case Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College. That case held that affirmative action policies used in college admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The crux of the argument being made by the Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA) group was that the affirmative action policies discriminated against minority Asian – American students when race was being used as a factor for admission. They argue that this discrimination results in many qualified Asian – American students being rejected from Harvard solely because of their race. Their reasoning starts with the premise that many Asian – Americans are qualified and get accepted in great numbers. They then assert that colleges who have already accepted a large number of Asian – American students conclude that there are already “enough” Asian – American students. So, those Asian – American students who did not get accepted must score significantly better to overtake a white student for a spot in the enrolling class. As a result, their convoluted and weak argument states that these Asian – American students are being harmed because the use of race for other minorities has diminished their chances to earn a spot at the college.
In the aftermath of the decision, this case was touted as a win for Asian – Americans and the discrimination they faced in college admissions. However, a significant number of Asian – American groups and individuals rejected the Supreme Court decision and are now discussing the strong possibility that genuine Asian – American interests was not the real goal. The true purpose was instead to use, manipulate and use as pawns Asian – Americans in order to have affirmative action declared unconstitutional.
Analysis
Many, many people from all walks of American life weighed in on the Students For Admissions case and commented on the merits of the case – the legal history of racial inequity in this country, the legal analysis of Chief Justice Roberts and the opposing views of the dissent. However, one thing that may have been overlooked is how the case arrived at the Supreme Court and the one nagging question that the Asian – American community is now grappling with – were they used and manipulated to bring about a result that the Asian – American community may not have wanted at this time?
The Asian – American non – profit group Asian – American Advocacy Fund did not mince words and directly addressed the issue by calling the decision “an example of ‘Asian – Americans’ being used as a “wedge” to erode civil rights.” The group went further and called the efforts by this group as a shield for a “white supremacist” agenda that used “a small number of Asian – Americans against affirmative action as pawns” in order “to divide our communities.” Even noted Hollywood and Star Trek actor George Takei commented on Twitter by calling those Asians who supported overturning affirmative action as having “Asian Sucker Syndrome (ASS).”
So, are the claims that the Asian – American community was used and manipulated by Ed Blum and his Students For Fair Admissions group valid? The signs certainly seem to point in that direction. Mr. Blum and SFFA had previously brought a case to the Supreme Court to overturn affirmative action with a white plaintiff claiming affirmative action had cost her a spot at the University of Texas but he lost the case. That prompted Ed Blum to find a more sympathetic plaintiff who could more plausibly claim discrimination and that is when he focused on finding an Asian plaintiff. However, when word got out that he wanted an Asian plaintiff to bring another case, he found that not many Asian groups supported his efforts. In fact, just a few years previously, more than 150 Asian – American groups signed an open letter supporting affirmative action policies. And it is also notable, that once Mr. Blum’s group started litigating their cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, no Asian – American students came forward to testify as having experienced discrimination in the college admissions process. And, in a National Public Radio (NPR) podcast, it was revealed that the data relied on by Mr. Blum to claim anti – Asian discrimination in Harvard’s admissions data was unsupported and that there was an overall feeling from Asian – American leaders that they felt used by Mr. Blum’s efforts. This was not a genuine effort to help Asian – Americans or to advocate for their interests as a community. Even the press release released by Mr. Blum when the decision was handed down failed to mention Asian – Americans anywhere in the text. Instead it is looking more and more likely that SFFA and Mr. Blum manipulated the small number of Asian – Americans who were opposed to affirmative action and twisted their narrative of discrimination in the U.S. to reach for another result – the end of constitutional protection for affirmative action policies, which he got. There are a number of reasons to be angry at the Students For Fair Admissions decision but for Asian – Americans the anger and disappointment is for something else – at being used to dismantle affirmative action policies that most Asian – Americans support. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- National Public Radio (NPR) – report on history of Ed Blum’s anti – affirmative action efforts and why Asian – Americans felt used and manipulated by his efforts.
- Asian American Advocacy Fund – statement from non – profit group condemning Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College decision.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.
Is that Hotel or Airbnb Really Clean, Sunny and Well-Appointed?
Is that Hotel or Airbnb Really Clean, Sunny and Well-Appointed?
Technology Policy Brief #92 | By: Mindy Spatt | July 19, 2023
Photo taken from: www.reddit.com
__________________________________
If you’re considering online reviews when booking summer travel accommodations, you’re not alone. Numerous surveys show a majority of consumers rely on online reviews when choosing products, accommodations and services. Unfortunately, those reviews are not always trustworthy, as anyone who’s arrived at a well-reviewed vacation rental only to find a dump knows. The World Economic Forum estimates that 4% of online reviews worldwide are fake, with costs to consumers in the billions.
Many of those fake reviews come from paid services. According to the Harvard Business Review, there is a “large and thriving market for fake reviews.” One method the Review noted was through Facebook groups that sellers use to recruit “buyers” for their products who post positive reviews and are actually compensated for doing so. And while many platforms, including Yelp and Airbnb, take measures to root out phony reviews, sellers are finding new ways to outwit them, and making them harder for platforms to find.
Some states are fighting back, as are federal regulators. California, New York and several other states joined the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in a suit against Roomster, an online apartment rental site, for using paid, fake reviews in its listings, which customers must pay to access.
“The FTC has seen a massive increase in online reviews in the past few years,” Serena Viswanathan, associate director of the FTC’s division of ad practices, told CBS News in an interview. “We’re all using them now to make decisions on whether to buy a product, where to stay on vacation. But unfortunately, with the rise in online reviews we have seen that bad actors can manipulate or fake reviews to deceive consumers for their own benefit.”
In announcing new efforts to rein in fakes, FTC Chair Lina Kahn called out the practice, saying “The incentives extend beyond the seller of the product itself. The platforms that host reviews may also, in some instances, benefit indirectly from fake ratings and endorsements and have financial incentives to turn a blind eye to misconduct that brings in revenue.”
Kahn’s agency is proposing rules that would penalize companies that use fake reviews to promote their products and services. The FTC’s proposal would make selling and buying phony reviews illegal, and also seek to prevent “review hijacking,” which is when real reviews are repurposed so they appear to be for a different product then originally intended. If the rules are finalized, violators would be subject to penalties of up to $50,000 for each violation. The proposed rules couldn’t come at a better time, as artificial intelligence is likely to make sham ads much easier to create and distribute.
In the meantime, how can you protect yourself?
Look for concrete wording.” A study conducted by Cornell University found that “Truthful hotel reviews…. are more likely to use concrete words relating to the hotel, like “bathroom,” “check-in” or “price.” Deceivers write more about things that set the scene, like “vacation,” “business trip” or “my husband.”
The quantity of reviews matters. If a product or service only has only a few reviews in comparison to the numbers for similar products or services, it may not be as good as it sounds. On Airbnb, beware of new accounts: Although the platform will delete or ban users after they have been caught posting fake reviews, those users will often be able to create new accounts and continue to scam consumers. Beware!
Engagement Resources
- https://fakereviewwatch.com
- How Policymakers Can Thwart the Rise of Fake Reviews by Morgan Stevens and Daniel Castro, September 12, 2022 https://datainnovation.org/2022/09/how-policymakers-can-thwart-the-rise-of-fake-reviews/
Charter Schools and the Myth of Desegregation
Charter Schools and the Myth of Desegregation
Education Policy Brief #83 | By: Steve Piazza | July 19, 2023
Photo taken from: www.theatlantic.com
__________________________________
Equal access to public schools in America has long been considered a tenet to maintaining its democracy. The push to desegregate them was viewed as an extension of this principle as its intention was to provide increased equitable academic opportunities and resources for students of all ethnic and economic backgrounds.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is the U.S. Supreme Court precedent for the desegregation of American public schools. Yet, even after the 1954 decision, the road to desegregation has been a slow one. In some instances, it took schools over a decade to begin complying with federal law. In the eyes of many, despite early improvement in graduation rates in African American and Hispanic students, the actuality of integration has been digressing.
School choice, and more specifically charter schools, have been thought of by some as a way to help desegregate schools. Charter schools are allowed greater local control and are not subject to the same rules and regulations as public schools. Charter schools and districts receive funding from the state and the local school system, though recent federal funding opportunities exist to assist with start-up costs.
Ordinarily, there are no demographic enrollment requirements for charter schools since by nature they are open to all students. In other words, they are not permitted to select their students to fulfill diversity goals like magnet schools can. This means that a charter school may find itself even more segregated.
Analysis
When it comes to improving schools, there is an enormous difference between educational innovation and school choice strategies like charter schools.
Education innovations range anywhere from year-round schools to technology-based lessons to experiential learning. Rather than mere rote memorization, the emphasis is on critical thinking, collaboration, and cultural awareness, attributes that colleges look for in those applying for admission. But a charter school is not so much an innovative teaching methodology as it is a process and framework that allows innovations to take place, which is part of their widespread appeal.
Since the early 1990s, charter schools have become one of the more popular choice approaches, and by 2019 3.4 million students were reported as being served by over 7500 schools with charter designation.
Despite their popularity, results on academic progress are mixed. In studies performed by the National Center for Education Statistics and the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, little or no differences in performance exist between traditional and charter schools.
However, according to a study done by Education Next, from 2005 and 2017 charter school students have demonstrated higher achievement by at least a half a year, and mostly by those who are African American or in lower economic groups particularly in urban areas. Researchers caution these trends do not point directly at an ethnic or poverty level, but do suggest that either the education quality has improved or that newly enrolled students are entering possessing more proficiency.
But when it comes to the progress of desegregating schools, charter schools have actually been shown to have little success achieving diversity, and even creating more segregated environments.
Statistics demonstrate that many charter schools enroll students that tend to be predominately one ethnic group. This means that many charter schools have become racially identifiable, and thus students are isolated from others of different backgrounds.
On its own, a school being racially identifiable is not a bad thing, but if students are de facto segregated, they are missing out on interactions with other groups of children that may provide a more realistic view or representation of the larger society, not to mention the intrinsic advantages that come with cross cultural collaboration.
Researchers of a 2019 Cornell study suggest that what is needed to reverse this trend of resegregation are “policies such as weighted lotteries, controlled choice and diversity-conscious admissions algorithms to ensure that charters operate more like racially inclusive magnet schools, and federal grant competitions should reward such efforts.” It might be a surprise to some that these strategies have not already been commonplace.
Many believe the real problem in education has been one of poverty and disproportionate funding, not race, as income segregation has increased significantly since the 1990’s. That But the sum of that argument does is not entirely made up of it parts hold up though, since at present, it appears to have so much to do with race as it can’t be a coincidence that white school districts still get more than $23 billion in funding than African American districts, and this includes charter schools.
Of course, all this raises the question: is integration for integration’s sake worth it?
Some would argue no as there are instances of improved achievement at many predominantly African-American charter schools. But if those are the exception in segregated charter schools rather than the rule, and academic results show a correlation to funding, we still have more to learn about what it means to be equitable.
Engagement Resources
- For more data on charter schools provided by The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) click here.
- EdBuild advocates for equitable funding for school districts. To learn more, visit their site at https://edbuild.org/
Brown’s Promise, a new program located at the Southern Education Foundation, advocates for school integration and the fair allocation of resources: https://www.brownspromise.org/
Presidential Plans to Circumvent the Supreme Court Veto of The Student Loan Program
Presidential Plans to Circumvent the Supreme Court Veto of The Student Loan Program
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #86 | By: Arvind Salem | July 18, 2023
Photo taken from: www.theguardian.com
__________________________________
The Supreme Court ruled that President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan is unconstitutional, stripping student loan relief for nearly 43 million borrowers: roughly 1 in 8 Americans.
Last August, President Biden unveiled a student loan forgiveness program that would cancel $10,000 for most borrowers and up to $20,000 for recipients of a Pell Grant, a form of aid for low-income families, during college.
Less than a month after the program was opened a slew of legal challenges plagued the program and forced it to shut down. Most of these claims centered around the fact that President Biden enacted this program through executive action alone, without Congressional approval. The lawsuit that ultimately led to the reversal of the student loan forgiveness plan was initiated by six GOP-led states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina.
The first issue the Nebrasks and the rest of the plaintiff states faced was whether they had standing to sue. To challenge a government policy in federal court, the plaintiffs are required to show that the policy has harmed them in some way. The states argued, and the courts agreed with this argument, that Missouri would be harmed since it created and controls the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), which services and holds student loans and if the debt-relief program goes into effect, it could cost MOHELA as much as $44 million per year, which would limit the company’s ability to contribute funds to support the state’s higher-education programs. This argument drew criticism especially from Justice Kagan who observed that MOHELA has the ability to sue on its own behalf and could’ve sued had it wished, but chose not to.
The crux of the legal issue in the case was whether President Biden could implement this program without Congressional approval under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003. The HEROES act allows the Secretary of Education, and by extension the President, to “ … waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance” during a national emergency.
Biden argued that since COVID-19 was a national emergency he had authority under this act to forgive student loans. Nebraska and the other states argued that this violated Separation of Powers and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs agency rulemaking. The Court eventually ruled that this was executive overreach and the words “waive or modify” in the statute did not grant the President the right to make such a transformative policy.
Analysis
Immediately after the decision, Biden stated that he’d pursue alternative paths to a student loan program under the Higher Education Act. The Higher Education Act, enacted in 1965, allows the secretary of education to “compromise, waive or release any right, title, claim, lien or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.” Biden has unveiled the SAVE plan (which stands for Saving on a Valuable Education). Rather than a conventional loan forgiveness plan, SAVE is an income- driven repayment plan that will phase out the current Revised Pay As You Earn plan (REPAYE). SAVE also appears to be on more solid legal footing under the Higher Education Act than the overruled plan based on the HEROES Act. The Higher Education Act has allowed the Department of Education to create and change income-driven repayment plans for years, without legal interference.
SAVE is more generous, and cheaper, than the overruled student loan forgiveness plan. SAVE could end up costing, depending on the estimate, $138 billion to $361 billion over the next 10 years. The overruled student loan forgiveness program had a one-time cost of $400 billion.
The terms of SAVE are also more generous than the overruled program. Firstly, SAVE raises the payment “floor” (under the floor income, people/families do not need to pay anything in student loans) to 225% of the federal poverty guideline, from the current 150%. SAVE also stops interest from accumulating (previously people who couldn’t cover monthly interest saw their interest increase), determines base payments on undergraduate loans on 5% of borrowers’ remaining income, not the current 10%, cutting monthly payments in half, and includes a more generous forgiveness mechanism, allowing more borrowers to have their loans forgiven earlier.
In the limbo between the implementation of the SAVE program and the end of the current loan forgiveness plan, President Biden also announced an “on ramp” period to help borrowers avoid penalties if they miss payments during the first year running from October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024. This would ensure that borrowers who are financially vulnerable have appropriate time to adjust to the Supreme Court decision. During this period, borrowers who miss monthly payments during this period are not considered delinquent, reported to credit bureaus, placed in default, or referred to debt collection agencies. This may be sorely needed as The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently warned that roughly 1 in 5 student loan borrowers may struggle when payments resume.
Engagement Resources
- Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget – The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization committed to educating the public on important fiscal policy issues and promoting fiscal responsibility. Readers who are concerned about the potential inflationary effects of fiscal impacts of student loan forgiveness programs may be interested in the organization.
- Democracy Forward – Democracy Forward was an organization founded in the wake of the 2016 election to counteract threats to our democracy. They advocate for many reforms to improve democracy and work to use courts to enact changes that best serve the American people. One of their priorities is student loan forgiveness, so readers who wish to support efforts to defend student loan forgiveness in courts may be interested in this organization.
- Student Borrower Protection Center – Student Borrower Protection Center is a coalition of advocates and researchers that aim to fight against predatory companies and student loan abuses to protect borrowers. They also advocate for policy changes to ensure that these issues don’t occur in the future. Readers interested in supporting borrowers after this recent court decision may be interested in this organization.
- Student Debt Crisis Center – The Student Debt Crisis Center (SDCC) is an organization that helps borrowers navigate the complicated student loan repayment system and engages in advocacy and the lobbying of national and state legislators. Readers who wish to help borrowers and fuel lasting change after this court decision may be interested in this organization.
A Depressing Look at the Current List of GOP Presidential Candidates
A Depressing Look at the Current List of GOP Presidential Candidates
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #85 | By: Abigail Hunt | July 18, 2023
Photo taken from: www.nbcnews.com
__________________________________
As the political primary season looms, the candidates of the Grand Ol’ Party are going to extreme lengths in donation solicitation in order to qualify for participation in the primaries. From the pack of right wingers competing for the chance to unseat President Biden have emerged a handful of front runners to challenge Donald Trump for the Republican nomination – namely, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron DeSantis, and Mike Pence, who each met the qualification bar of 40,000 unique donors. Still floundering for footing are Larry Elder, Doug Burgum, Chris Christie, Perry Johnson, and newcomers Ryan Binkley, Will Hurd, and Francis Suarez. These low-hanging fruit are doing their best to scrape together a money pile tall enough for them to reach the primary stage.
In a fundraising bid that puts the Girl Scouts to shame, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum is offering $20 gift cards to the first 50,000 who donate at least $1, spending a cool $1 million to earn as little as $50,000 in donations if he makes his goal. Ramaswamy offered a 10 percent donation kickback to each donor, and that tactic may have helped, as he is set to participate in the first Republican National Committee-sponsored primary debate scheduled for August 23 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Conversely, former South Carolina Governor – and former U.N. Ambassador under Trump – Nikki Haley, 51, has brought in close to $30 million in donations. Haley’s totals are dwarfed by DeSantis, 44, whose funding – including from Super PAC support – is at $150 million and growing. Trump, as is par for the course with him, fails to provide a full accounting of his campaign funding. The latest numbers show Trump out-earned DeSantis, but the numbers for the third quarter will paint a clearer picture, as DeSantis entered the race later in the year, well into the second quarter.
The new competitors
Many of those vying for the nomination are from a new generation, the majority being in their 40s and 50s. Miami mayor and Cuban-American Francis Suarez joined the race a few weeks ago. Suarez is so far the only Hispanic candidate in the running, and he joins a younger and more diverse group than past election cycles – Tim Scott, 57; Nikki Haley, 51; Francis Suarez and Will Hurd, both 45; and Vivek Ramaswamy, the youngest in the group at 37, are POC candidates more than a decade younger than the current and former Presidents, Trump and Biden. Older and arguably more conservative than Trump is Larry Elder, 71, a POC candidate who, like Tim Scott, denies the existence of structural racism. Ramaswamy, still a long-shot, would be the first Indian and the youngest president in history were he to be elected to office.
Hurd, a former C.I.A. officer with expertise in cybersecurity, represented Texas’s 23rd Congressional District for six years and has thrown his hat into the ring. Hurd’s home district includes a long stretch of the Mexican border, and he’s a vocal critic of previous and current administrations’ dealings with the immigration crisis facing border states.
The GOP offerings for leader of the free world are typically white and male, and in the past several years, also quite old. Not to worry, conservatives. Tradition holds. Trump, 77, the eldest of the group, has the highest approval rating of the lot, despite his many well-known failings. Former Vice President Mike Pence is 64; Doug Burgum, 66, and Perry Johnson is 75. Current President Joe Biden is 80 – the oldest sitting President in U.S. history.
Ryan Binkley, 55, is CEO of an equity group and founder and pastor of Create Church in Richardson, Texas. Binkley made the decision – after vacillating on it for eight years – that his next calling was to lead the country, because what do we need more of in politics? Completely irrational judgment calls based on millennia-old outdated religious texts that subjugate women and demonize anyone who doesn’t fall in line and the private funding to push that agenda! At least he’ll have Iran as a resource if he gets his way. Binkley talks about bridging divides and in the same breath praises the overturn of Roe and condemns the LGBTQ community to hell.
Speaking of zealous religiosity, Trump has been stirring the pot of evangelicals by appealing to their self-perceived moral superiority, ranting about tyranny and evil, claiming he battles against “sinister forces” in a “righteous crusade. Haley is a former U.N. Ambassador vocal with her criticism of both the current and former administrations dealing with China, pointing out that Chinese chemicals are the base ingredients for fentanyl, which killed more than 64,000 people in the U.S. just last year. Lest ye think Haley is not a religious zealot in her own right, like the rest of the GOP field, Haley supports a federal ban on abortion. She could be a voice for immigrants, women, and POC, but instead she falls in line with the rest of her ilk, increasing the likelihood that she’s essentially “a diversity hire” for the candidate pool who will fade away well before the election.
Like a shadow creeping across the land, the extreme ideals of today’s good ol’ boy party grow dark and deepen. Despite the fact that several candidates are decades younger than either President Biden or Trump, they bring the same medieval mindset.
Education Will Be a Hot Button Political Issue in 2024
Education Will Be a Hot Button Political Issue in 2024
Education Policy Brief #82 | By: Rudolph Lurz | July 14, 2023
Photo taken from: www.ny1.com
__________________________________
In the 2000 Presidential Election, education was a central issue. Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, attacked Republican policies that created crowded classrooms with large class sizes. George W. Bush, the Republican nominee, called for stronger accountability for schools and tying federal funding to standardized test scores, along with extending the use of vouchers. 77% of likely voters considered education to be a “very important” issue, and the subject was a frequent topic on the campaign trail and during debates.
Following his narrow and controversial victory in the election, President Bush followed through on his campaign promise with the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which was signed into law in early January 2002. Despite its promises to deliver broad improvement to struggling schools through incentive-based funding, the end result was that wealthier districts got a lot of that funding because their students (predictably) performed better on the state assessments. The assessments themselves required roughly 7 billion dollars of state funds, which lined the pockets of giant education corporations like Pearson. The obsession with standardized testing further exasperated educators and parents alike, and fortified the antiquated factory model of education, which prioritizes rote memorization and recall over critical analysis. Very few educators and policy actors believe that NCLB resulted in improvement for American education, and lawmakers who voted for its passage in 2002 quickly retreated from their previous support of the measure by the time of the next election cycle in 2004.
There is a stark contrast between education’s prominence in the 2000 election cycle and each presidential election after it. Education was not often mentioned in the 2012 and 2016 debates. It was actually a rare point of consensus between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, as Romney noted he liked some of the things Secretary Arne Duncan was doing with Race to the Top. In the first and final presidential debates of 2020, it did not even make the agenda as a topic.
Education will likely be front and center as an issue of prominence in the 2024 Presidential Election. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin made “parent choice” a central issue in his surprise victory in 2021, and Republican policy actors have made “anti-woke” education proposals a centerpiece of the GOP platform in recent months. The lessons from the 2000 Election demonstrate that if the GOP retakes the White House in 2024, education’s centrality as an issue means bad news for students and teachers nationwide.
Analysis
During the 2000 election cycle, I was a junior at Sarasota High School, the example Al Gore used to discuss overcrowded classrooms. In 2001, President George Bush touted his own education policies in a nationwide tour of classrooms, and was at Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, FL when he received the news that the Twin Towers were under attack on September 11th. In more recent history, Sarasota is one of the origin points of the Moms for Liberty advocacy coalition, which seeks dominion over district curricula and library selections across the nation. One can say that my hometown has been at the center of education debates over the past quarter century.
Zeal for conservative education ideas has not equated to good education policy in recent history. NCLB was passed in the House with a vote tally of 384-45. Many of those same policy makers were left scrambling to defend their decisions when educators, parents, teachers, and students were angered by the realities of high-stakes standardized testing. Even Rick Scott, who is extremely right-leaning on education policy, rolled back standardized test requirements during his time as Florida’s governor.
Bill Clinton made teachers and nurses the heroes of his standard campaign stump speech in the 1992 campaign (you can hear it in his victory speech at around the 13-minute mark on the link). George W. Bush focused on students, with the notion that all children should be educated, and for that matter, assessed. That was a worthy goal, as districts nationwide devoted millions of dollars to educating students with special needs. Positions appeared on job boards for roles as reading coaches, ELL instructors, special education case managers, and early intervention specialists. The message was sound. Who can argue against “no child left behind”? The 384-45 tally on the passage of the NCLB Act speaks to the appeal of that message.
This latest push for “parent choice” creates a similar powerful message with broad appeal. Parents want the best for their children and feel that they should have a central role in determining the curricula they receive in public schools. Governor Youngkin’s opponent in the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial campaign, Terry McAuliffe, provided a response that future Democrats would be wise to avoid. He stated, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”
No Child Left Behind accelerated the trend of high-stakes standardized testing which has had lasting and detrimental effects on the very students it sought to help. “Parent Choice” is, in reality, a ticket to handing control of public school curricula to far-right activists who seek to chill discourse concerning any topics that they personally dislike, including those relating to uncomfortable periods in U.S. history such as slavery and segregation, along with any discussion about LGBTQ+ issues. Education will be relegated to the kind of rote memorization of facts and figures promoted by NCLB, and patriotic cheerleading will replace critical analysis of issues facing this nation, past and present. Any voices which diverge from the standard talking points from Moms for Liberty will be chilled into silence or screamed at until they are squashed.
It would be better for students, parents, and teachers if education did not have a place in the spotlight this election cycle. Since it will, progressive and centrist policy actors better find a better answer than Terry McAuliffe’s.
Instead of playing defense on parents’ role in designing curricula, they should demonstrate that priorities such as early childhood education and assistance with the exorbitant cost of childcare should be the focus. Household budgets are more compelling than conservative activists scouring district libraries to censor books they dislike. They should stand up for teachers, who are caught between the pincers of standardized testing and parents who want to stifle class discussions that require the critical thought needed to survive in an Information Age economy. If this is the Information Age, how does stripping access to books and resources help students compete?
This will not be a comfortable debate topic in the 2024 cycle, but Democrats need to find answers, and fast. They cannot sit on defense, or Moms for Liberty will be designing units for our kids instead of professional educators. The only answer is a counteroffensive. The rhetoric for that counteroffensive could come from Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory speech.
Engagement Resources
- No Child Left Behind Overview: No Child Left Behind – ED.gov
- Race to the Top Overview: Race to the Top | The White House (archives.gov)
- Moms for Liberty Recently Labeled as an Extremist Group: Moms for Liberty named ‘extremist’ by civil rights watchdog : NPR
Supreme Court Declares Affirmative Action Unconstitutional
Supreme Court Declares Affirmative Action Unconstitutional
Civil Rights Policy Brief #207 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | July 14, 2023
Photo taken from: www.japantimes.co.jp
__________________________________
In November 2014, the group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed separate lawsuits against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). The lawsuits claimed that the race – based admissions programs of both schools violated federal law. Specifically, the lawsuits claimed that the programs were in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Bench trials were held in both cases. In both the Harvard College and UNC trials, the district courts sided with both universities and upheld the race – based admissions programs. The Harvard College case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which affirmed the trial court’s decision for Harvard. Both cases were then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to both cases.
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a 6 – 2 decision in the Harvard College case and a 6 – 3 decision in the UNC case. The voting of the justices only included eight justices in the Harvard College case because Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself because she had previously served on Harvard’s Board of Overseers. In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, he declared that the race – based admissions program violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because the programs “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidable use of race in a negative manner, involved racial stereotyping, and lacked meaningful end points.” In total, the entire decision is comprised of six separate opinions and runs 237 pages. LEARN MORE
Analysis
While the decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College was a disappointing decision it was not unexpected. The current 6 – 3 conservative majority on the Court all but ensured that the Court would strike down affirmative action, as bringing an end to the policy has been a conservative rallying cry for decades. While the outcome may have already been decided beforehand, the separate opinions raised some interesting points.
Chief Justice John Roberts in his opinion thoroughly went through the “strict scrutiny” analysis required under the Equal Protection Clause. While that clause guarantees that all people and/or classes of people will be treated equally under the law, an exception is permitted if the rationales put forth by the government pass strict scrutiny. That two step process asks first if the separate classification of a group of people is for the “furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.” And if so, if the use of a separate class for race is “narrowly tailored” or necessary to achieve that interest. Using this legal test, Roberts states that the interests put forth by Harvard and UNC are difficult to measure and seem haphazard to determine if having race – based admissions programs is actually providing a benefit. Because it can be difficult to determine if an admissions program today is helping to train leaders of tomorrow, the Chief Justice finds that the admissions programs may not be the only means to achieve that goal and therefore fail strict scrutiny as he analyzes it. Once his analysis determines that, the programs are declared in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and easily struck down.
However, Justice Kavanaugh wrote an interesting concurring opinion which deserves a reading more than the majority opinion. Justice Kavanaugh writes about the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger Supreme Court law school admissions decision, which included a discussion on how long affirmative action programs should last. Affirmative action programs, from the beginning, were always meant to be temporary until improvements or progress were deemed made. While the holding in that case says that considering race in a student’s application for law school is permissible, a number of Justices in that case stated that affirmative action may not be necessary twenty – five years in the future. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the majority opinion, explicitly said this while other Justices on both sides of the aisle mentioned their hope that affirmative action programs would not be necessary in twenty – five years. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed although warned that it should not be so firm that affirmative action would not be needed at such a definite date. This discussion from the prior case is key to Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion because it opens the door to the discussion whether affirmative action programs is still needed today or should end.
The majority opinion in this case seems to want to end affirmative action regardless of the current landscape in the U.S. In the U.S. today, there is still a hostility to Asian – Americans and other minority communities that belies the majority opinion’s insistence that there is a true equality of races today. Elderly Asian – American people were brutally attacked during the years of COVID due to a misconception that Asian – Americans brought the COVID virus to the U.S. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis just recently signed a bill prohibiting Chinese persons from purchasing real property in the state. In Atlanta in 2021, six Asian – American women were targeted and killed (eight people total were killed in the mass shooting) by a shooter who was a client at their establishment. What these terrible incidents show, and the bigotry and ignorance they show toward Asian – American communities, is that there are still virulent strains of hatred against Asians that could seep into educational policies, including admissions programs now that race is prohibited from being an essential factor. For the Court to declare that there is no longer any racial animus in the U.S. and that the U.S. is colorblind is ignorant of the racial climate in the U.S. today, especially against Asians. Affirmative action programs should not be permanent but today is not the time for the programs to be dismantled. The case may only apply to race – conscious admissions programs but has the unintended effect of opening the door to potential discrimination against Asians in academia, the corporate world and other industries. Now, in the wake of the decision there are reports that Republicans are going to challenge race based scholarships and that the founder of SFFA, Ed Blum, is going to now challenge the use of race on corporate boards and academic fellowship programs. Because of the current hostile environment against Asians, this case was wrongly decided at this particular time. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- PBS – report on the rise of Asian hate incidents.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit’s group comments on the latest decision.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.
Temperatures are going up as the trees are coming down
Temperatures are going up as the trees are coming down
Environment Policy Brief #156 | By: Todd J. Broadman | July 12, 2023
Photo taken from: https://fox40.com/
__________________________________
Recognizing the significant role that healthy forests play in climate and biodiversity, 145 countries were represented last year in Glasgow, Scotland at the Declaration on Forests and Land Use. The resulting agreement aimed to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. Of particular focus is the preservation of primary or first-growth forest; in 2022, on average 11 soccer fields of primary forest were destroyed each and every minute. That rate of destruction adversely impacts climate and biodiversity. With global demand for wood expected to grow by 54 percent between 2010 and 2050, it is highly unlikely that the Glasgow agreement will be met.
That demand is largely driven by agricultural commodities, fuel and timber products like woodchips, as well as paper and cardboard. Logging to meet that demand will cover an area roughly equivalent to clear-cutting the entire continental U.S. Among other functions, a healthy forest sequesters carbon from the atmosphere and produces sugar, and during the process of decay carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Throughout the U.S., 12% of carbon emissions are captured by forests.
Deforestation rates outside the U.S. continue to be alarming. Tropical primary forests are of particular concern, and four countries that are witnessing a rapid decline in forested acreage are: Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, and Bolivia. Within Brazil, the states of Amazonas and Acre saw record levels of primary forest loss last year. Amazonas state’s forest cover loss has doubled over the last three years. These industrial scale clearings do more than threaten biodiversity, they threaten people – the many indigenous tribes living there.
Policy Analysis
96% of all forest removal takes place in the tropics – the very forests needed most to aid in regulating climate. In Brazil, the rate of tropical primary forest loss increased by 15% from 2021 to 2022, the vast majority of that loss coming from the Amazon. There is good research to suggest that there is a tipping point in which the Amazon can become too dry due to lack of rainfall and turn into savanna. Throughout the tropics, the economic driver is commodities production.
Following Brazil in tropical forest destruction is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). In the DRC trees are cleared to make way for small-scale agriculture and charcoal production used for household energy needs. Over half of DRC’s population is deeply impoverished – 81% don’t have electricity. Another example of how socio-economic conditions intersect and directly determine habitat loss. To the west of DRC is Ghana, where forests are being cleared for added cocoa farms and related production, and this is in addition to gold mining activity.
Bolivia saw a record-high increase in primary forest loss in 2022, almost a third more land laid bare than the year before. Even more than the country of Indonesia. Bolivia, not coincidently, was absent from the Glasgow agreement. Commodity production, yet again, is the driver there – soybean acreage. Bolivia has lost nearly a million hectares of primary forest since the turn of the century, of which nearly a quarter can be attributed to Mennonite colonies, who have made a sizable footprint in South America raising commodities such as sugarcane, corn, sorghum and cattle, in addition to soybeans.
The World Resources Institute’s Rod Taylor asks, “are we on track to halt deforestation by 2030?” and answers, “the short answer is a simple no.” He and many other concerned observers see a trend. The United Nations has established a line in the sand, one of many that we see get washed away, for companies and financial institutions to eliminate commodity-driven deforestation by 2025. A 2022 analysis is sobering: in Brazil, over a recent three-year period, only 2% of illegal deforestation were subject to any penalty by federal law enforcement agencies. The President of Kenya, Wiliam Ruto, has removed the long-standing logging ban in that country; another invitation for further crucial habitat loss and corrupt Kenya Forest Service officials. “By lifting this ban, president Ruto has prioritized profit over people and nature,” said Greenpeace Africa’s Community Manager Tracy Makheti.
The desperation of the poor coupled with the sanctioned greed of the wealthy will continue to drive deforestation in the face of anger and protests, in the face of organizations like the U.N. that cannot enforce the very agreements they have labored so long to put in place. The major destinations for the commodities of palm oil, beef, leather, soy, rubber, and coffee, that arrive at the cost of primeval forest, are China, the European Union, and the United States. And like oil, there are no laws to prevent their continued importation.
Engagement Resources
- https://www.wri.org/ The World Resources Institute works globally to meet people’s essential needs; to protect and restore nature; and to stabilize the climate and build more resilient communities.
- https://maaproject.org/en/ The Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project (MAAP) is a project of the conservation nonprofit Amazon Conservation Association and is at the forefront of the field of high-tech, real-time monitoring of deforestation.
- https://www.clientearth.org/ Ingeniously uses the law to create systemic change, focusing on the most pressing environmental challenges.
Supreme Court Misconstrues Religious Liberty Again In New Discrimination Case
Supreme Court Misconstrues Religious Liberty Again In New Discrimination Case
Civil Rights Policy Brief #208 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | July 12, 2023
Photo taken from: nytimes.com
__________________________________
Summary
Lorie Smith owns a graphic design business in Colorado named 303 Creative, LLC. Ms. Smith decided that she wanted to expand her business into website design, specifically wedding websites for couples. However, Ms. Smith was worried about what effect Colorado’s Anti – Discrimination Act would have on her business and her personal religious beliefs concerning same – sex marriages. Ms. Smith believes that her religious beliefs instruct that only a man and a woman can enter into a marriage because this is “biblical truth.” She feared that under Colorado’s statute that she would be compelled to design a wedding website for a same – sex couple in contravention of her beliefs.
Ms. Smith brought a lawsuit in federal district court seeking an injunction prohibiting Colorado from enforcing the State’s anti – discrimination statute against her and forcing her to create wedding websites for all customers. During the trial, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts. The most significant facts stipulated to were that the wedding website designs were created by Ms. Smith and were “expressive in nature” and were “original, customized” creations that conveyed her beliefs about marriage. The federal district court ruled against Ms. Smith and denied her request for an injunction. The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appeals court ruled that while Ms. Smith’s creation of wedding websites constituted “pure speech” protected by the First Amendment she was not entitled to an injunction prohibiting Colorado from enforcing its anti – discrimination statute against her. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
On June 30, 2023 the Court decided in a 6 – 3 decision that under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment that Ms. Smith could properly refuse to create a wedding website for a paying same sex couple. LEARN MORE
Analysis
This case is very similar to a Supreme Court case from 2018 that was also from Colorado and also focused on whether a business could decline to provide a business service to a same sex couple. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was a narrow ruling against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission finding that the Commission was not neutral to religion in that particular case. But that case also avoided issuing a sweeping judgment addressing the contentious issue as to whether religious beliefs can be used to discriminate against a class of people such as LGBQT persons. There was hope that the 303 Creative, LLC case might address that but the Court again refused to address the religious beliefs to discriminate conflict directly and instead decided this case differently. The Court ruled for Ms. Lorie Smith on Free Speech grounds.
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion tracks the “strict scrutiny” analysis employed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals but comes to a different conclusion. Under the two – step strict scrutiny analysis, speech can be prohibited if the government has a “compelling governmental interest” and “no less restrictive alternative exists to secure that interest.” When he analyzes the compelling government interest Justice Gorsuch recites the long history of cases that showed that the government had no compelling interest in forcing persons to espouse a particular message or viewpoint. Children could not be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette), a veterans group could not be forced to include LGBQT members in their parade (Hurley v. Irish – American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc.) and the Boy Scouts could exclude a scoutmaster because he was gay (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale). At the heart of all these cases is that the government may not compel a person or association from speaking a specified or preferred government message. According to Justice Gorsuch then, the “compelling government interest” prong of the strict scrutiny analysis fails because there is no government interest in forcing Ms. Smith to create wedding websites for same sex couples because of the expressive nature of her “speech” in creating these websites.
However, Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion contains an interesting historical footnote that should not be overlooked. In Section C – 1 of her dissent, she recounts the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the legal history of antidiscrimination statutes similar to the Colorado act at issue in this case. What is noteworthy is that business owners who were opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claimed that by being forced to serve a certain class of people would force them to act against their religious convictions. This is the same argument being made today by those who want to deny service to LGBQT persons. Congress rejected those arguments and proceeded to pass the landmark civil rights law. The history then shows that these opponents tried to take their concerns to court where they consistently lost. In Katzenbach v. McClung, the Court rejected a business owner’s argument that his personal convictions prohibited him from serving Black people at his restaurant. In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. the Court rejected the argument that a business owner forced to serve Blacks would violate his religious liberty. And lastly, in Runyon v. McCrary the Court rejected a school’s First Amendment Free Speech argument in support of their policy of excluding Black children from enrolling. The Court said that Free Speech under the First Amendment did not permit a school to discriminate because the school was still free to teach its preferred “ideas or dogma.” What the debate prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and these cases illustrate, and what Gorsuch’s majority opinion misses, is that the arguments and rationales supporting discrimination based on religious beliefs and convictions had been previously rejected by Congress and the Supreme Court. This Court is simply ignoring these cases in order to get their preferred policy result in allowing religious beliefs to be used as justification to discriminate against a class of people. Back then, the goal was to exclude Blacks but now the same rationales are being brought up again but now to exclude LGBQT persons.
While Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion does a proper free speech strict scrutiny analysis of the case, even he admitted that he came to a different legal conclusion than what the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals came to when it did its own strict scrutiny analysis. Legal rules can often be twisted and manipulated to get a preferred policy outcome. But his opinion fails to address the concerns raised by Justice Sotomayor in her dissent that could have changed the outcome in the case. Gorsuch’s penchant of picking and choosing convenient facts and ignoring significant cases and precedents makes his reasoning less credible in the ongoing religious liberty – discrimination debate. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Human Rights Campaign – statement from non – profit group on 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis case.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – statement from non – profit group on 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis case.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM SUGGESTIONS PART 2: HEALTHCARE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM SUGGESTIONS: PART 2: HEALTHCARE
OP ED | By: U.S. Resist News | July 11, 2023
Photo taken from: nytimes.com
This is the 2nd in a series of U.S. RESIST NEWS recommendations of platform positions for use by 2024 Democratic Party candidates.
__________________________________
The US healthcare system is extremely fragmented. Healthcare access varies from state to state and according to income level and racial and ethnic background. We suffer from high rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, kidney and lung disease and stroke. Mental health problems and drug addictions are widespread. Abortion recently has been stripped of its country-wide right by the Supreme Court. With the recent notable exception of insulin, most prescription drug prices are unregulated. Our public health system seems unprepared to deal with new diseases and pandemics.
The misshapen, unequal state of our health system calls out for the Democrats to make universal access to affordable health care (Medicare for All) a central part of their 2024 election platform. At the core of the platform should be a call for healthcare to be embraced as a basic human right, be it through legislative action or a constitutional amendment. And a related call should be made for continued support for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) until Medicare for All becomes a reality.
The call for reproductive rights for women and the Supreme Court Dobbs decision (that reversed the Supreme Court’s decades long support for abortion as a federal right) should be another major component of the Democratic platform.
Dobbs has proven to be a highly unpopular decision among women of all backgrounds. Coming out against Dobbs will help promote the turnout of women voters for Democratic candidates.
Democrats should announce their intention to build on the Biden administration’s success in reducing insulin prices and call for reductions in other widely used but overpriced drugs. They also should turn their attention to stronger regulation of drugs that do us harm, such as opioids.
The Party platform also might consider putting greater emphasis on preventive health care measures to help address the growing incidence of mental health behavioral problems and obesity in our country. Such measures should also call for greater promotion of the use of existing and new vaccines that have proven to be effective in preventing disease, such as the Covid vaccine
And finally the party needs to give serious consideration to labeling gun violence as a public health issue that should be addressed by health professionals as well as law enforcement officials.